reason vs faith vs reality

[wandering soul]

ok in this ongoing debate there is no resolution when the terms are not defined. Even then there will be no resolution because it is being driven by emotion and survival instincts rather than informed comprehension.

First the problem must be addressed from the point of divergence which is not at the point of either reason or faith but of reality. Reality is not, as we always assume, some objective verifiable entity. It is an abstract concept created by the human mind.

Plants, rocks, water, air, and animals do not have Reality, they have merely existence. Even animals with mind and consciousness do not experience reality but only existence. Reality did not exist until the human mind worked itself up from manipulation of mental objects (as all sentient creatures do) to construction of mental ideas and thoughts (also common in sentient creatures) and then from thoughts and ideas constructed abstractions leading to abstractions as fully formed mental objects themselves to be manipulated to construct whole worlds and universes of philosophy, science, and yes, religions.

Both faith and reason are just mental tools we have constructed to manipulate and create our mental worlds and our realities - yes plural - one size does not fit all. We are all constructing and experiencing different realities based on different data sets, using different mental tools and different methods of construction of reality.

The thing is, you can't say one reality is more "real" than the other. Reality is an abstraction which we create, which corresponds to our subjective lived experience. We only trade in one reality for another when our current constructed reality starts to break down in the face of that business of raw existence itself - which can totally disrupt our mental abstract constructs at times.

[genkaus]

ok in this ongoing debate there is no resolution when the terms are not defined. Even then there will be no resolution because it is being driven by emotion and survival instincts rather than informed comprehension.

Are you more interested in defining the terms or redefining them to suit your argument? If your aim is informed comprehension of the concepts then then you need to start with opening a dictionary and understanding what they mean.

First the problem must be addressed from the point of divergence which is not at the point of either reason or faith but of reality. Reality is not, as we always assume, some objective verifiable entity. It is an abstract concept created by the human mind.

Wrong. Reality is an objectively verifiable entity.

Reality
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact

It is not a concept created by human mind.

Plants, rocks, water, air, and animals do not have Reality, they have merely existence. Even animals with mind and consciousness do not experience reality but only existence. Reality did not exist until the human mind worked itself up from manipulation of mental objects (as all sentient creatures do) to construction of mental ideas and thoughts (also common in sentient creatures) and then from thoughts and ideas constructed abstractions leading to abstractions as fully formed mental objects themselves to be manipulated to construct whole worlds and universes of philosophy, science, and yes, religions.

The totality of all things having existence is called reality. So plants, rocks water air etc do not have Reality - but Reality has plants, rocks, air, water etc. It existed not only before humans were capable of forming thoughts and abstractions, but before there were any humans at all.

The cause of your error is the misuse of the word reality. Reality exists objectively and independently of human mind - but the mind is capable of forming concepts, abstractions and other ideas about it and based on it through perception and experience. This mental model of reality that we have (the correct word for which would be worldview) is often conflated with reality because we fail to recognize any errors or bias in it due to erroneous perception and subjectivity. So while you may refer to your worldview as "my reality", do not make the mistake of confusing it with the actual reality.

Both faith and reason are just mental tools we have constructed to manipulate and create our mental worlds and our realities - yes plural - one size does not fit all. We are all constructing and experiencing different realities based on different data sets, using different mental tools and different methods of construction of reality.

The only correct statement here is that faith and reason are both mental tools. We are all living in the same reality and we are all experiencing the same reality - but we are using different tools to create our mental models of reality. So while we may be working with different data sets, these data sets are subsets of the same reality and because we use different tools, our mental models of reality - our worldviews - turn out to be different. That does not mean that there actually are different realities.

The thing is, you can't say one reality is more "real" than the other. Reality is an abstraction which we create, which corresponds to our subjective lived experience. We only trade in one reality for another when our current constructed reality starts to break down in the face of that business of raw existence itself - which can totally disrupt our mental abstract constructs at times.

Actually, I can say that - and I do say that. The actual reality - the one that has an objective existence - forms the standard to see which worldview is more real. "My reality", i.e. my worldview based on reality constructed from my subjective experience and mental tools like reason or faith, is "real" only so far as it matches the actual reality. The more it deviates, the more unreal it is. And as we've found, reason provides much more "realistic" models of reality than faith.

[wandering soul]

Wrong. Reality is an objectively verifiable entity.

The totality of all things having existence is called reality. So plants, rocks water air etc do not have Reality - but Reality has plants, rocks, air, water etc. It existed not only before humans were capable of forming thoughts and abstractions, but before there were any humans at all.

The cause of your error is the misuse of the word reality. Reality exists objectively and independently of human mind

This is a very interesting assumption. So you believe that reality is foundational to existence itself that reality is the un-generated generator and basis of the structure of existence? And our minds only observe that reality which is actually existent. Reality is thus independent of the space-time continuum being the primal entity which generates existence? or do you consider reality to be co-terminous with the space-time continuum? If there were no space-time continuum would there be no reality?

and an aside on construction and defining terms - dictionaries are not the arbiters of meaning, merely the compilers of the current standard of a language by a certain set of standard setters at a particular time in the living, organic, mutating, growing life of a language. Most disagreements and misunderstandings are due to the fact that we all really do use language differently. That is why we need to listen to one another to figure out how your language can best be translated into my language and vice versa. Dictionaries do nothing for communication.

I dislike resorting to any sort of "scriptural" arbiter of either meaning or language. Communication is best appreciated when it is a rush through the rain laughing, getting wet, and finding out how and why we think like we do.

[Faith No More]

I don't think reality is independent of existence. Reality is the state of that which exists. We use different tools to interpret that reality, and some create a model that is more closely related to reality than others. I believe it is entirely fair to say one person's interpretation of reality is more true than another's, which would be the one that more accurately reflects that reality.

[Drich]

Mis-post

[genkaus]

This is a very interesting assumption.

Not an assumption. The same way that its not an 'assumption' that all bachelors are unmarried.

So you believe that reality is foundational to existence itself that reality is the un-generated generator and basis of the structure of existence?

Nope. I believe reality is existence. What is real, exists. What exists is real.

And our minds only observe that reality which is actually existent.

Yes.

Reality is thus independent of the space-time continuum being the primal entity which generates existence?

That is not a conclusion you can draw from my statement.

or do you consider reality to be co-terminous with the space-time continuum? If there were no space-time continuum would there be no reality?

That depends. As per our current knowledge, reality may be co-terminous with space-time continuum, but our current knowledge certainly does not cover the whole of reality. Whether or not there is something to reality beyond the limits of space-time - we do not know yet.

and an aside on construction and defining terms - dictionaries are not the arbiters of meaning, merely the compilers of the current standard of a language by a certain set of standard setters at a particular time in the living, organic, mutating, growing life of a language.

The current standards of language are the arbiters of meaning and dictionaries, being the compilation of those standards - become the proxy arbiters of meaning.

Language maybe changing constantly and words may have a different meaning now than the one they had in past, but that is irrelevant. The simple fact is that they have a specific meaning now - a specific way in which it is used - and if your goal is clear communication of idea, you have no excuse not to use it in that way.

Most disagreements and misunderstandings are due to the fact that we all really do use language differently. That is why we need to listen to one another to figure out how your language can best be translated into my language and vice versa. Dictionaries do nothing for communication.

If most disagreements are due to different usage of language, then the simplest solution is not to constantly keep translating, but to use the same language. Set up objective standards and use the language accordingly. That is the simplest and most effective way of resolving communicative disagreements and dictionaries - being compilations of those standards - provide us with excellent tools for doing just that.

I dislike resorting to any sort of "scriptural" arbiter of either meaning or language. Communication is best appreciated when it is a rush through the rain laughing, getting wet, and finding out how and why we think like we do.

Such sentiment is what I would expect from someone who is not actually interested in clarity of communication. From someone who doesn't want to get his ideas across effectively, but simply to confuse and obfuscate the meaning in order to trick others into thinking that his ideas have greater depth and meaning than they actually do.

[Whateverist]

So you seem to be using "reality" as in "my reality" versus "your reality", in other words, one's subjective construct of that which (s)he experiences. Many would use this word "reality" interchangeably with that which you call mere existence. But I'd like to get clear on how you are using these terms.

Now those things which have existence, would you say the nature of that existence lies in them inherently -or- that it is bestowed upon it by the manner in which someone puts together their reality? That is, is the nature of raw existence as you use that word an objective state of things in themselves -or- do you assume the nature of raw existence is essentially subjective?

ok in this ongoing debate there is no resolution when the terms are not defined. Even then there will be no resolution because it is being driven by emotion and survival instincts rather than informed comprehension.

First the problem must be addressed from the point of divergence which is not at the point of either reason or faith but of reality. Reality is not, as we always assume, some objective verifiable entity. It is an abstract concept created by the human mind.

Plants, rocks, water, air, and animals do not have Reality, they have merely existence. Even animals with mind and consciousness do not experience reality but only existence. Reality did not exist until the human mind worked itself up from manipulation of mental objects (as all sentient creatures do) to construction of mental ideas and thoughts (also common in sentient creatures) and then from thoughts and ideas constructed abstractions leading to abstractions as fully formed mental objects themselves to be manipulated to construct whole worlds and universes of philosophy, science, and yes, religions.

Both faith and reason are just mental tools we have constructed to manipulate and create our mental worlds and our realities - yes plural - one size does not fit all. We are all constructing and experiencing different realities based on different data sets, using different mental tools and different methods of construction of reality.

The thing is, you can't say one reality is more "real" than the other. Reality is an abstraction which we create, which corresponds to our subjective lived experience. We only trade in one reality for another when our current constructed reality starts to break down in the face of that business of raw existence itself - which can totally disrupt our mental abstract constructs at times.

[yoda55]

I don't think reality is independent of existence.

Agreed.

Reality is the state of that which exists.

Agreed.

We use different tools to interpret that reality, and some create a model that is more closely related to reality than others.

I think we use the same tools. But, we apply previous information through a lens defined by assumptions or preconceptions - this is "perception"... Viewpoint (the direction from which we view it) is just as important. It is colored by our experiences and the source of our own beginnings. It can also be termed "perspective"... These two tools are how we view and process what we sense.

Truth is the extant state. To build upon it, only truth can be added to it (Boolean AND truth table)... Any introduction of falsehood into that collection of truth collapses the aggregate into falsehhood... There is no state of "more true" than another state, because the observer is making judgments about the collection of states. If one has less than the whole collection, then the conclusion is false... [There can only be Truth (in aggregate, universally) or there is falsehood (anything short of that universality).]

[Angrboda]

Why is this thread in the Christianity subforum, instead of philosophy?


(I prefer to just stand around and catch the blood on my shirt, but it would appear the OP is guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept.)

[yoda55]

Why is this thread in the Christianity subforum, instead of philosophy?

... because... all discussions about religions or faith begin with fundamentals in reasoning and philosophy?